Social "equality" for gays

  • Thread starter Thread starter Newbie2
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
GratefulDad said:
Are listening and trying to understand or just being a Troll?
Click to expand...
are you?

Just because I may not agree with the conclusions being drawn, doesn’t mean that I haven’t read them. As a matter of fact, since I’ve addressed the conclusions specifically I think it’s pretty obvious that I’ve read them.
 
Why do I get the impression that no one believes what pathia is saying he or she has experienced first hand? I personally do not know very much at all about law, so I do not really know what to believe. I have several conclusions, and have yet to reach one.

A. Pathia is being truthful, however, in most cases it is not actually this difficult to draw up and enact the necessary legal documents.
B. Pathia is being truthful and in fact this is a very common difficulty that homosexual couples face.
C. Pathia is being partially truthful.
D. Pathia is lying (at this point, I have been given no reason to believe this).

I really appreciate any further discussion on this topic, or any information I can be pointed towards that will help me reach on a conclusion on how difficult it actually is for homosexual couples to receive certain rights that they wish to have.
 
Kevin42 said:
Why do I get the impression that no one believes what pathia is saying he or she has experienced first hand? I personally do not know very much at all about law, so I do not really know what to believe. I have several conclusions, and have yet to reach one.

A. Pathia is being truthful, however, in most cases it is not actually this difficult to draw up and enact the necessary legal documents.
B. Pathia is being truthful and in fact this is a very common difficulty that homosexual couples face.
C. Pathia is being partially truthful.
D. Pathia is lying (at this point, I have been given no reason to believe this).

I really appreciate any further discussion on this topic, or any information I can be pointed towards that will help me reach on a conclusion on how difficult it actually is for homosexual couples to receive certain rights that they wish to have.
Click to expand...
In my professional opinion A is the answer.
 
Fitswimmer said:
As I said-that’s what people resort to when they can’t debate intelligently. Don’t let it bother you.
Click to expand...
You and Carjack1 should try to open your hearts and minds to God’s full love and truth.
 
Calling God’s other children names is not openinig the heart to him, but causing conflict. 🙂
 
Carjack1 said:
Calling God’s other children names is not openinig the heart to him, but causing conflict. 🙂
Click to expand...
Then we’re not the ones you need to be talking to. How about speaking to the people who called us trolls? 😉
 
Fitswimmer said:
No, they haven’t. Just as in the case of pharmacies, as long as said gay couple can receive equal services, nobody has to quit. As long as there are other clerks and other photographers nobody has to quit. We’ve had civil unions in NJ for quite a while now, and nobody has had to quit anything because it violates their moral code. If they have, that’s their choice, not because anyone forced them.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid lawsuits have already happened. See this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=232733

about this lawsuit:

onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=75547

And what if you’re the only clerk in a small town who issues marriage licenses? What if you’re the only Justice of the Peace for miles around but you think gay marriage is immoral? What if your boss says, “You will issue that license or be fired”?
I had the same fears about churches and ministers getting sued, but since they are practicing their constitutional right to freedom of religion it will be very hard for a gay couple to win such a suit. Sure there would be ugly press coverage when the suit was announced, but ultimately they’d lose. Oddly enough, it would be people like the ACLU that would defend them, which would drive a lot of folks here crazy.
Click to expand...
I never said they would expect to win. Just bringing a lawsuit, especially one intended to generate a lot of publicity, can cause damage. If the plaintiffs can get the ACLU to do their case pro bono, they don’t have to pay. But in addition to being dragged through the mud, the Church would have to spend money to defend herself. Catholic Charities in California already lost when it was ordered to offer insurance plans that pay for contraceptives, effectively telling a Catholic organization it had to pay money for something it regards as sinful.

Apparently you’ve never been sued. My father was. He was a plumber and put in the plumbing in a new home. There were problems with the electricity in the house, and the homeowners sued everyone who had anything to do with the construction of their house. My father had to pay a lawyer who advised him to settle out of court since it would cost him more in lost time and wages to actually go to court, even if he won. So first he had to pay the lawyer, then he had to pay the settlement, even though he had absolutely nothing to do with what had gone wrong.

Lawsuits are often used as weapons against innocent parties, and there are a lot of people who hate the Catholic Church.
 
Fitswimmer said:
Then we’re not the ones you need to be talking to. How about speaking to the people who called us trolls? 😉
Click to expand...
I often wonder why people come here and do not make a good will effort to listen and learn. Especially after everyone has been so charitable.
 
pathia said:
Why keep saying ‘they’? I’m right here, call me a gay activist if you want. I just want to be able to have my partner visit me when I can’t give the doctors the thumbs up. I couldn’t this time either, I was out and delirious for a fever. Even though he brought me in, they wouldn’t let him in with me until the lawyer got involved. Waking up and seeing that he was with me was heartening, but then I heard the trouble he had doing something as simple as that, thankfully it only took a few hours since it wasn’t 3am like last time.
Click to expand...
this is the part i don’t understand. where are these hospitals that they don’t allow people to have visitors? i visited and been visited in many different hospitals. never has relationship ever been brought up. i even visited a friend in a psychiatric hospital and nobody was supposed to know she was there! but they let me in to see her. 🤷
 
GratefulDad said:
I often wonder why people come here and do not make a good will effort to listen and learn. Especially after everyone has been so charitable.
Click to expand...
Then ask them instead of calling names? Calling somebody a troll is not charitable; in fact, I think the forum rules prohibit it. I’m not trying to be a jerk, but sometimes people just disagree.

It is not reasonable to expect that everyone here will have the same opinion or the same perspective. I don’t expect I’m going to convince people to agree with me (although I am persuasive and charming…). I come here because I like the discussion and because I find it useful to hear perspectives that differ from my own. I spend most of my life in a very small circle of people, and this is a good way to discuss things.

Maybe the problem is that we (including me) think of “learning” as meaning that others will learn and agree with our positions?
 
Kay_Cee said:
I’m afraid lawsuits have already happened. See this thread:

forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=232733

about this lawsuit:

onenewsnow.com/Legal/Default.aspx?id=75547

And what if you’re the only clerk in a small town who issues marriage licenses? What if you’re the only Justice of the Peace for miles around but you think gay marriage is immoral? What if your boss says, “You will issue that license or be fired”?

I never said they would expect to win. Just bringing a lawsuit, especially one intended to generate a lot of publicity, can cause damage. If the plaintiffs can get the ACLU to do their case pro bono, they don’t have to pay. But in addition to being dragged through the mud, the Church would have to spend money to defend herself. Catholic Charities in California already lost when it was ordered to offer insurance plans that pay for contraceptives, effectively telling a Catholic organization it had to pay money for something it regards as sinful.

Apparently you’ve never been sued. My father was. He was a plumber and put in the plumbing in a new home. There were problems with the electricity in the house, and the homeowners sued everyone who had anything to do with the construction of their house. My father had to pay a lawyer who advised him to settle out of court since it would cost him more in lost time and wages to actually go to court, even if he won. So first he had to pay the lawyer, then he had to pay the settlement, even though he had absolutely nothing to do with what had gone wrong.

Lawsuits are often used as weapons against innocent parties, and there are a lot of people who hate the Catholic Church.
Click to expand...
True, but the ACLU would probably not be supportive of the gay couple in that kind of case. They take on cases where people’s freedoms of religion is challenged. They would come down on the side of the Church in this one. It would be ugly and it would be wrong, and there would be negative publicity-but it would be a cakewalk compared to the abuse crisis.

The New Mexico case is likely to be overturned on appeal, it’s a bad decision. In the end the couple may end up owing the photographer $$. I think it’s really more likely a contract issue than a rights issue. People contract with photographers to shoot weddings. All a photographer has to do is state in their contract that they do not provide services for gay weddings and they’re covered.

As far as the only guy in town thing, I suppose it’s possible. What happens in cases where the only MD in town won’t dispense BC?

Catholic Charities is a sad case, but legal. The organization takes money from the state, therefore they have to play by state rules.
 
Fitswimmer said:
True, but the ACLU would probably not be supportive of the gay couple in that kind of case. They take on cases where people’s freedoms of religion is challenged. They would come down on the side of the Church in this one. It would be ugly and it would be wrong, and there would be negative publicity-but it would be a cakewalk compared to the abuse crisis.

The New Mexico case is likely to be overturned on appeal, it’s a bad decision. In the end the couple may end up owing the photographer $$. I think it’s really more likely a contract issue than a rights issue. People contract with photographers to shoot weddings. All a photographer has to do is state in their contract that they do not provide services for gay weddings and they’re covered.
Click to expand...
Did you read what this guy posted? You ignoring this is all we need to know about your position. So sad.

From the Vatican:

vatican.va/roman_curia/co…unions_en.html

CONSIDERATIONS REGARDING PROPOSALS
TO GIVE LEGAL RECOGNITION
TO UNIONS
BETWEEN HOMOSEXUAL PERSONS

I. THE NATURE OF MARRIAGE
AND ITS INALIENABLE CHARACTERISTICS
  1. The Church’s teaching on marriage and on the complementarity of the sexes reiterates a truth that is evident to right reason and recognized as such by all the major cultures of the world. Marriage is not just any relationship between human beings. It was established by the Creator with its own nature, essential properties and purpose.(3) No ideology can erase from the human spirit the certainty that marriage exists solely between a man and a woman, who by mutual personal gift, proper and exclusive to themselves, tend toward the communion of their persons. In this way, they mutually perfect each other, in order to cooperate with God in the procreation and upbringing of new human lives.
  2. The natural truth about marriage was confirmed by the Revelation contained in the biblical accounts of creation, an expression also of the original human wisdom, in which the voice of nature itself is heard. There are three fundamental elements of the Creator’s plan for marriage, as narrated in the Book of Genesis.
In the first place, man, the image of God, was created “male and female” (Gen 1:27). Men and women are equal as persons and complementary as male and female. Sexuality is something that pertains to the physical-biological realm and has also been raised to a new level – the personal level – where nature and spirit are united.
.
.
.
II. POSITIONS ON THE PROBLEM
OF HOMOSEXUAL UNIONS
  1. Faced with the fact of homosexual unions, civil authorities adopt different positions. At times they simply tolerate the phenomenon; at other times they advocate legal recognition of such unions, under the pretext of avoiding, with regard to certain rights, discrimination against persons who live with someone of the same sex. In other cases, they favour giving homosexual unions legal equivalence to marriage properly so-called, along with the legal possibility of adopting children.
Where the government’s policy is de facto tolerance and there is no explicit legal recognition of homosexual unions, it is necessary to distinguish carefully the various aspects of the problem. Moral conscience requires that, in every occasion, Christians give witness to the whole moral truth, which is contradicted both by approval of homosexual acts and unjust discrimination against homosexual persons. Therefore, discreet and prudent actions can be effective; these might involve: unmasking the way in which such tolerance might be exploited or used in the service of ideology; stating clearly the immoral nature of these unions; reminding the government of the need to contain the phenomenon within certain limits so as to safeguard public morality and, above all, to avoid exposing young people to erroneous ideas about sexuality and marriage that would deprive them of their necessary defences and contribute to the spread of the phenomenon. Those who would move from tolerance to the legitimization of specific rights for cohabiting homosexual persons need to be reminded that the approval or legalization of evil is something far different from the toleration of evil.

In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally recognized or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic opposition is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection.

This is pretty self explanatory and should not need a lot of discussion.

Please try and be of good will to others who only are attempting to share God’s truth.
 
Penny_Plain said:
Then ask them instead of calling names? Calling somebody a troll is not charitable; in fact, I think the forum rules prohibit it. I’m not trying to be a jerk, but sometimes people just disagree.

It is not reasonable to expect that everyone here will have the same opinion or the same perspective. I don’t expect I’m going to convince people to agree with me (although I am persuasive and charming…). I come here because I like the discussion and because I find it useful to hear perspectives that differ from my own. I spend most of my life in a very small circle of people, and this is a good way to discuss things.

Maybe the problem is that we (including me) think of “learning” as meaning that others will learn and agree with our positions?
Click to expand...
Please remove that horrible and offensive T word from your signature. It is very, very uncharitable you know.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top